click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
intellect or exercise in ideology. i covered ronald reagan for six years. and if you want to discuss it some more, i can tell what you i learned in those six years of covering the presidency. it with a lot different than than what i thought it was going to be. it became clear to me that to a large degree, it is a test of the president's will and purpose. to believe in a few big things, to stand steady against the swirl of political controversy, opinion, nowadays, that's certainly not true for the presidents in this book. polls, advice from counselors, all kinds of things that would drive a president away from his core convictions to not necessarily do what he believed in or what he really believed to be best for the country. this is a book about character, about 16 presidents from george washington to george w. bush who all in a moment of national crisis did what they in their hearts believe was the right thing for the country, who showed character. not necessarily what turned out to be right. think there's some decisions they made that i don't know i agree with. and you can certainly argue
petitions. they did not threaten third- party movements. in a nutshell, what ronald reagan understood was a conservatism was not defined by its resentment. but which actually had a smile on its face. much like reagan himself. that is why it into a curious sort of way, it seems republicans, not out of breath out -- not out of nostalgia am i think for conservatives you can do a lot worse thing go back and look at the real reagan. the pragmatic reagan. the reagan who was willing under certain circumstances to raise taxes. the reagan willing to put dick on his ticket in '76 or george bush four years later. >> the tax policies that some precedent. do you think the fiscal cliff and the presence of the debt ceiling are enough to overcome this culture of obstruction? >> i am not sure it will overcome the culture of destruction. that is in many ways an outgrowth of the political system that we have built. on the other hand, you may not have to overcome the culture of obstruction. only have to pick up -- pick off x number members of congress. >> he said it was time for republicans to stopping t
that divided government sometimes has done very important things for the country. think of ronald reagan and tip o'neill reforming social security. ronald reagan and tip o'neill doing the last comprehensive tax reform. bill clinton and republican congress doing welfare reform and balancing the budget. we look forward to making this divided government productive for the american people. and we have, of course, as everyone well knows, a lot of challenges here at the end of the year. i'll be meeting with the president and the other leadership on friday to talk about the way forward. and we look forward to being a part of the solution to these significant problems. it's my plesh shoe now to turn to our newly elected whip, senator john cornyn of texas. >> thanks, mitch. it's an honor to be elected by my colleagues to serve as the whip. the assistant leader on the republican side. as leader mcconnell said, we have a lot of very difficult work to do, but we are committed to working with our colleagues across the aisle to solving the nation's urgent problems. we know what those are in the lame d
is ronald reagan. the numbers are still being counted in the west coast so it will be bigger. obama has the bigger margin of victory than george bush did in 2004. and remember that george bush declared himself a mandate into how. >> stephanie: how long bigger do you think the poplar vote margin would have been if it weren't to hurricane sandy. obviously the popular vote would have been bigger. >> caller: no, it's clear. i wouldn't be surprised if we get to a four-point margin. this is how good this is. we are close if it expands to half a percent, which is doable with the ballots in california arizona and washington and oregon. president obamamitt romney will have around 47% of the vote. >> stephanie: how ironic tee hee. congratulations on all your rightness and smartness. >> caller: thanks very much. >> what universe is dick morris not part of the media. he's complaining about the media and his mug is on fox news every five minutes. >> stephanie: myth busters is taking you to task for saying it's too landslides in a row. >> it's not two lan landslides in a row. >> stephanie: what do y
of the money here, but to be the big problems have been the trade agreements, starting with ronald reagan, the outsourcing of our jobs. there are a lot of people trying to live and $10 an hour while they are getting social security, medicare, taking out of their money, and then they are told by people like paul ryan and mitt romney that that is an entitlement. to me, that is like more of a ponzi scheme if they take that away. getting back to the elephant in the room, until we start talking about structurally change in this country beyond fighting over taxes -- you can fight over moving around the chairs on the titanic, but what really needs to be done is we need to repeal the trade agreement, look at taxing goods from china, and we need to get jobs back into this country, manufacturing jobs with wages people can live on and pressure for wages to go up. right now, the pressure is for wages to go down. you are fighting over what is less of the money coming in. host: let's go to the congressman. guest: this is an important issue that was fought over in the campaign. we need to support manufa
s, of considers under ronald reagan and george w. bush's tax rates in 2003. it's interesting, i found two universal effects of those tax cuts. first, in every instance we cut the rates, the economy worked faster. it did work, mr. president, we got a lot of growth. but the second may be more interesting, is that guess what happened to the share of taxes paid by the rich. they went up, in fact, if you want to get more money, mr. president, out of rich people, cut their tax rate, don't raise them, because history proves it. >> dave: certainly did in the reagan years and another peace in the wall street journal a couple back, clinton rates, raised top tier 39.6 and as the authors of that piece said produced the one period of shared prosperity not because they raised taxes, but certainly lead to growth, right? >> no question. the 1990's was a prosperous era, but i think that sometimes people get a little of that history wrong what happened in the 1990's, president clinton raised taxes in the first year in office and remember, the first two years in office were a catastrophe and in fa
examples of presidents who solved big problems by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic-led house after a far more resounding second-term victory than president obama's, as did bill clinton, with a republican-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate after a more resounding second-term victory than president obama. both examples -- both of them -- illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected, by thumbing his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans aren't willing to do things his way, he won't do anything at all. now, if the president's serious, he'll follow the leads of president reagan and clinton. if he's really serious, he'll put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic solution that can pass a republican-controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. and if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he'll have the support of his own party and a willing partner
been pro-immigration. ronald reagan was solidly for immigration reform, and if you go to youtube and google reagan-mondale debate, reagan making the case not for legalization, but for amnesty. using that word. now, republicans are pro-immigration, but they have been afraid for the past six years of anti-immigration lobby with an incredible political machine, and anybody who says anything constructive on immigration will be labeled pro-amnesty, and certainly, some talk show hosts, and now, i think this election cycle dramatically changed that. i can, at least, number half a dozen talk shows that said, you know what? my position evolved, and now i'm for immigration reform, but that is good because it will give cover to a lot of republicans who have avoided the issue or want to deal with the issue to actually do it so we have to reclaim the issue, and we can do it because immigration and being for immigration reform is actually the conservative position. restrictionists at the end is part of the nationalist, protectionist paradigm, and if we are the party of the family, if we ar
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)